Next week, I’ll have the honor being the dinner keynote speaker at the European Petrochemical Associations 2nd Interactive Supply/Demand Chain Workshop in Brussels, Belgium. This years’ theme is “21st Century Supply Chains for the Chemical Industry”. The topic is timely given how there’s been so much talk concerning over-consumption, consumer behavior, corporate social responsibility and increased growth of sustainability in manufacturing and supply chain management. And the chemical industry indeed plays a large role in much of what we consume. It reminds me of the old Monsanto commercial…”without chemicals, life itself would be impossible”. It’s just that these days, chemicals in the global marketplace appear to be getting ‘greener’.

Consumer Demand for Sustainable Products

Consumer demand appears to be contributing (at least in part) to some of the gains in eco-friendly and sustainability focused design and manufacturing progress that’s being made in the global marketplace. There is certainly a higher degree of consumer awareness and understanding of the need to make healthier, socially conscious and eco-friendly products. However, the Green Confidence Index, a monthly online survey (~2,500 Americans by GreenBiz.com) noted last year that U.S. consumers cite price and performance as the principal reasons for not buying more green products- the flat growth was partially attributed to stale economy. The slow economic growth of 2010 appeared to also be slowing widespread innovation by small to medium-sized businesses focused on green manufacturing.

In contrast, the consumer business disconnect appears to be alive and well in other parts of the world. In fact, it’s my thinking that businesses are significantly underestimating consumer interest and awareness in sustainability and green issues. For instance, consumer demand for sustainably manufactured or ‘green’ products and services in China, India and Singapore are outstripping supply (according to an independent survey conducted by TÜV SÜD Asia Pacific). I’ve no doubt the same is the case in Europe, often considered way ahead in terms of consumer sensitivity regarding sustainability. The TÜV SÜD Asia Pacific found that:

84% of consumers prepared to pay an average 27% premium for green products, services.

Only 43% of business believes consumers to be willing to pay more or even produce or trade green products in China, India and Singapore.

74% of businesses either do not have a policy or guideline to minimize environmental in place or are failing to clearly communicate they have one.

Chemical Industry Response to Sustainability and Supply Chain Impacts

Manufacturers in the chemical industry and peripheral services have progressively been responding to end-consumer and customer driven pressures. The emergence of ‘green, (or sustainable) chemistry” and restricted materials initiatives over the past half-dozen or so years have propelled the chemical industry and global consumer products manufacturers to rethink how products are made, consumer health effects and long-term eco-impacts. Traditionally, supply chain management of hazardous products has focused more on reducing the exposure to hazards than on hazard elimination. The advent of green chemistry has provided opportunities to refine supply chain management, including procurement policies and practices, by developing safer products. Redesigned products and processes can dramatically reduce the risks encountered in manufacturing, storage, transportation and waste control by mitigating the hazards associated with them. From a risk management perspective, since it is fundamentally better to mitigate hazards than to try to protect against them, green chemistry has proven to be highly beneficial and contributes by default to greener supply chain management and supply chain-related risk management

Many manufacturers have risen to the occasion in recent years to drive green chemistry and supply chain management to lessen their eco-footprints and support development of safer products. Global chemical manufacturer BASF chooses its carriers, service providers and suppliers not just on the basis of price, but 0n their performance in the fields of environmental and social responsibility when making our sourcing decisions. In addition to following the internationally recognized Responsible Care program requirements for environmental, health and safety, BASF has established product stewardship goals designed to reduce its overall eco-footprint.

“What counts for us is acting responsibly throughout the entire supply chain because we want to build stable and sustainable relationships with our business partners. This is why we choose carriers, service providers and suppliers not just on the basis of price, but also include their performance in the fields of environmental and social responsibility when making our decisions.”

The company also maintains several key features of its global supply chain management program, including:

Safe transportation to our customers

Evaluate and support partner companies

Monitoring of suppliers

Product types and sources important

Providing advice for better services

China: sustainability in the value chain

Minimum social standards for suppliers

Meanwhile, DuPont’s Mission is focused on “creation of shareholder and societal value while we reduce the environmental footprint along the value chains in which we operate”. Throughout the production-supplier-consumer value chain, DuPont strives through end to end supply chain communication to 1) manage risk and be adaptable; 2) gain efficiencies & profitable flexibility; and 3) enable sustainable product performance and verification through its entire supply chain. Sustainability efforts are tracked and managed for continual improvement through a combination of business management integration approaches and supply chain design and operation.

On the retail side, Walmart has asserted itself in the past several years, by clarifying its stance about reducing toxics in products. In response, American Chemistry Council members have pledged to lower GHG intensity by 18% by 2012 using 1990 as a base-reporting year and has exceeded that initial commitment and has reduced carbon intensity by 36%. In addition, Dow Chemical’s is working to harmonize the Walmart goal with its own sustainability objectives of decreasing its environmental footprint and maximizing product performance throughout the supply chain.

“Given the challenges associated with running a global chemical manufacturing supply chain, we have been focused on sustainability for a long time – not just our own but also how we address sustainability with our customers and our customers’ customers,” – Anne Wallin, director of sustainable chemistry and life cycle assessment at Dow Chemical.

Logistics Providers Stepping Up to the Challenge

Among supply chain and logistics businesses, the 2009 14th Annual 3PL Study found that shippers want to create more sustainable, environmentally conscious supply chains. The survey found a need to strike a balance between labor & transportation costs. Surveyed 3PL’s also noted the market value of carbon-reducing processes, compressed production cycles, and less carbon intensive transportation modes that beat the competition.

Most recently, American Shipper just published its Environmental Sustainability Benchmark Study of over 200 shipping companies. According to the study, “survey respondents clearly see environmental sustainability has an emerging impact and increasing importance in their supply chain. On a scale of one to five (one lowest; five highest) the study average ranked sustainability as 2.42 two or three years ago, 3.41 today, 3.95 in five years, and 4.17 in 10 years”. Interestingly, customer demands, at 25% percent (see graphic below) are on a par with company policies as a leading driver of environmental sustainability adoption. Most respondents saw potential return on investment (ROI) although ROI was clearly a potential barrier to sustainability adoption.

In response, leading 3PLs and fourth party logistics providers (4PL’s) are focusing more attention on business practices that are intentionally drive business efficiencies , but (perhaps unintentionally) enhance overall environmental performance, namely:

In-Store Logistics

Collaborative warehousing & infrastructure

Reverse Logistics

Demand Fluctuation Management

Energy/Fuel Use Management

End consumer preference certainly has its place in deriving sustainability in the 21st century, but as I see it, the chemical industry and its shipping and logistics partners are showing proactive leadership in embedding sustainability in the “source, make, deliver and return” product value chain.

My next post will explore how competitive collaboration, or “co-opetition”, is making resurgence in the supply chain sustainability conversation. In the meantime, I’m looking forward to next week’s conference and all the hospitality that Brussels has to offer.

Last week, the Supply & Demand Chain Executive magazine announced the recipients of its 2010 Green Supply Chain Awards. These awards recognize companies that are making sustainability a core part of their supply chain strategies.

This is quite an impressive list and perhaps it shows that “green supply chain” as an integral function in business operations may be cementing itself as a new “business as usual”. Why? I have spoken repeatedly about how small to midsized companies are being pressured by primary customers, or original equipment manufacturers are seeing trade barrier blockage due to emerging rules and regulations, and how advancements in accounting for corporate social responsibility effort are on the rise, to name a few.

“The purpose [of the Green Supply Chain Awards], according to Andrew K. Reese, editor, Supply & Demand Chain Executive is to “highlight a range of strategies and solutions that companies are employing to incorporate sustainability into the supply chain,” Reese said. “Our readers can use this information as a baseline to assess their own efforts in this regard.” Through an online nominations process, submissions were reviewed based on the clarity and content of the sustainability and related supply chain management goals and strategies, implementation measures taken and performance results to date.

Past recipients like Schneider Electric implemented a number of measures through its supply chain designed to manage the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemical Substances (REACH) law entered into force in the European Union in June 2007. Taking proactive action with its suppliers avoided costly disruptions in its operations.

At D.W. Morgan Co. last year, the company introduced iPhone-based mobile communications system, and with it managed to eliminate roughly 50,000 paper way bills annually.

Finally, 2009 winner Conexant Systems consolidated its hubs to two major locations in Singapore and Taiwan. This consolidation allowed the company to allowing it to mix-and-match its chip sets at those locations, leading to significant reduction and reuse of packing materials, and reduced customer shipment frequency (by up to 75 percent). Now that is efficient!

These examples demonstrate how viewing at sustainability as a vital business risk management tool can be effective at all points in the product value chain- from Sourcing/Procurement, to Product Fulfillment/Logistics, Operations, Product Lifecycle Management Design , and other areas of the product value chain.

On top of the SDCE Green Awards list, Inbound Logistics named its Top 50 Green Partners list earlier this year (some of the third party logistics and freight companies are also listed on the more recent SDEC list I might add). Visionaries every one of them for being innovative and sustainable without negatively impacting their bottom line. I encourage you to look over the list and the great accomplishments each of these manufacturers and supply chain partners have achieved.

There are a myriad of “boots on the ground” examples where companies have tackled operational efficiency and optimization and managed to reduce their environmental footprint and pare costs of production and product distribution. All it takes is innovation, a solid cross functional team, leadership support and the will to finish the job. Perhaps next year, your company will make the list.

The eighth annual “Global Survey of Supply Chain Progress,” was released recently. The poll was conducted by Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC), Supply Chain Management Review, The Eli Broad Graduate School of Management at Michigan State University, with assistance from The Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals (CSCMP) and Supply Chain Europe Magazine.

This year’s survey gauged respondents present competencies and future plans in such areas as supply chain management policies and practices, supply chain continuity, and green and sustainability initiatives. Understandably, with the down turn in the economy of the past couple of years, the results showed a mixed bag. However, a key finding from the survey is that supply chain management (SCM) is now perceived by the vast majority of respondents as being of core business importance. Leaders that implanted SCM practices that led to cost savings yield far greater results than the laggards…er, followers. Nearly 77 percent of the respondents reported that SCM improvement and emphasis had increased over the past year, leading me and the surveyors to think that many companies may have been much worse off without SCM.

The Green Supply Chain Edge

Meanwhile, green supply chain initiatives indicated “lukewarm results” and once again, the most positive improvements reported resided mainly with the SCM leaders. A large number of respondents reported a modest but steady 3 to 4 percent annual savings, especially in areas of energy, transportation, and packaging. Clearly, sustainability initiatives have a long ways to go before significant positive results are achieved. But as I see it, that small margin may just be the difference maker for many companies financial health.

The survey found that 49 percent saying they were currently implementing options and another 31 percent currently evaluating options. When asked to judge performance from a sustainability perspective, the response was a typical bell shaped curve. Nearly half of the respondents placed themselves squarely in the middle of the pack.

Kimberly-Clark Shows How Green Gets Done

Efficient supply chains are increasingly essential to maintaining prices and generating new revenue. One example where efficiency has paid off handsomely, with additional environmental benefits is in the case of Kimberly-Clark- you know, the Kleenex folks (and so many other personal care products). Kimberly-Clark is among those companies that successfully demonstrate that a focus on sustainable business practices goes hand-in-hand with cost reduction and efficiency. Not only is the company designing and manufacturing products with a smaller environmental footprint, but they are getting smarter about how they transport their product.

According to i2 Technologies, a supply chain solutions provider, Kimberly-Clark is “ both reducing its environmental impact and running a lean and efficient supply chain, which in turn brings real benefit to its biggest customers, grocery retailers, and ultimately to consumers. Along with other initiatives designed to improve its impact on the environment, Kimberly-Clark has implemented i2 Transportation Management order fulfillment solutions in its European and North American operations that manage transportation pricing but have also reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) output. The company estimates that it’s saved over “£1 million, a reduction in mileage of 380,000 miles and a reduction in CO2 of as much as 540,000 kg”.

Perhaps Kimberly-Clarks CEO Tom Falk summed it all up: “”Because sustainability is a core value at Kimberly-Clark, we know that making better choices for the environment and society can many times mean making better choices for our business.”

The innovative example above and the recent CSC Global Survey demonstrate that small incremental gains can make a huge difference between being in the red or in the black on the balance sheets.

Thoreau did it. So did Carter and Brezhnev, and Reagan and Gorbachev too. They all took a walk in the woods, like I did on a recent weekend…to explore and resolve internal and external issues. My hike took place in the coastal redwood forests of the Santa Cruz Mountains on the central California Coast. A hike through these beautiful groves of ancient redwoods is truly an awe-inspiring, reflective experience. Redwood forests are complex ecosystems. From the tallest trees in the world to the tiniest animal, the whole forest is a working system in a very delicate balance. Everything has a role to play in this forest.

Coastal Redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens) are also known for their resistance to fire. They are protected by a very thick bark that lacks the highly flammable resin of other tree species. These resilient trees in some cases, can live for more than 2,000 years, making them one of the oldest tree species in the world. Also, unlike most trees, redwoods lack a taproot. Instead, they have a shallow root system that can extend up to 100 hundred feet outward, forming a network of connected root systems with other trees. But despite the connected roots, high winds and/or flooding can bring these massive trees to the ground.

Now substitute the word “forest” with “supply chain”, “tallest tree” with “largest company” and tiniest animal with “smallest supplier”, and you hopefully get where I am going with this post.

I mentioned in prior posts that to make progress on environmental issues in organizations and in supply chain management, organizations must understand that they’re part of a larger system. Fifth Discipline and The Necessary Revolution author Peter Senge makes valid claims that organizations are in a better competitive position if they understand the larger system that they operate within and to work with people you haven’t worked with before. Like a forest, where all parts depend on the other, if the balance is upset, there can be chaos and poor ecosystem health. A supply chain is in effect a business ecosystem. And a supply chain functions the same way as a redwood, in that it has interconnected roots rather than one strong taproot, but can be blown down by external forces that it may not be able to control.

The Concept of Business Ecosystems

Author James Moore developed and popularized the strategic concept of business ecosystems in his 1996 book The Death of Competition: Leadership and Strategy in the Age of Business Ecosystems.According to Moore, a generic business ecosystem is defined as the economic and social environment that consists of organizations, individuals, regulatory structures and controls, government organizations, customers, competitors, suppliers, and the many entities with which a business interacts. The principal purpose of the business ecosystem is to align its members towards a shared vision that is greater than the sum of its parts. Business ecosystem value is created by the combination of participants and their contributions – and their role within the ecosystem to enable the achievement of a combined vision or goal.

Many organizations have sought ways to deliver greater product and customer value through innovative supply chain solutions. The common link is that customers’ receive value from a whole solution, which takes into account all value chain contributions. Think HP, Microsoft, Cisco, IBM. Traditional high tech companies. But this thinking extends to consumer product and apparel manufacturers (Herman Miller, Procter and Gamble, Unilever, Nike, Keen, Patagonia) and major retailers like Walmart, Starbucks, Kohls. The list grows weekly. Each of these organizations have created business ecosystems through redefining the nature of the value for the client. They have further created new competitive environments, with new rules and practices that account for sustainability and that challenge their industry norms through green supply chain innovation.

While my recent post called out many large companies for being procrastinators and laggards, I continue to applaud the industry leaders who’ve seen how each tree (supplier) contributes to a stronger and healthier forest (supply chain).

So go take a walk in the woods. Breathe the air, take in the silence…and think of ways that you can help your company refocus its sustainability efforts and supply chain health for future generations to enjoy.

In Part 1 on this series, I presented some definitions of reverse logistics from a traditional versus sustainability focused mindset, and extended product responsibility.

Reverse logistics includes processing returned merchandise due to damage, seasonal inventory, restock, salvage, recalls, and excess inventory. It also includes recycling programs, hazardous material programs, obsolete equipment disposition, and asset recovery. While product “take-back programs” have been a part of many companies operational playbook for some time, more sophisticated approaches are emerging which involve greater degrees of coordination and planning among multiple suppliers.

For a logistics practitioner, the best value choice for disposition is still often determined by the most profitable alternative:

Reconditioning – when a product is cleaned and repaired to return it to a “like new” state

Refurbishing – similar to reconditioning, except with perhaps more work involved in repairing the product.

Remanufacturing – similar to refurbishing, but requiring more extensive work; often requires completely disassembling the product

Resell – when a returned product may be sold again as new

Recycle – when a product is reduced to its basic elements, which are reused – also referred to as asset recovery.

Product take-back programs

Product take-back programs are particularly popular in the retail sector, as manufacturers reap the benefits for material recovery while customers find convenient ways to jettison used products for recycling (printer cartridges, used computers, aluminum cans, tires, batteries, etc). As my first post mentioned, restricted materials directives in Europe such as WEEE and RoHS have for years been dictating how manufacturers manage “end of life” equipment issues. In his book aptly named “The Truth about Green Business”, Gil Friend describes a series of steps that retailer Patagonia and manufacturer Hewlett Packard (HP) have taken to close the loop on product manufacturing to mutual benefit. In particular, to meet the growing demand to manage end of life issues for computers and other electronics, HP and mining company Noranda crafted a take back system in the early 2000’s that is unique. The system covers pickup, transportation, evaluation for reuse or donation, and recycling for products ranging from printers to scanners. Noranda provides HP and other OEMs with disassembly, product testing and metal recovery services. Part of this process involved installing efficient warehousing systems that electronically tracked materials through the recycling process. About 3.5 million pounds of materials are processed annually. Dell Computer Corporation also has a similar take-back program, aimed at its leasing customers and other large companies that may have Dell units. Dell Financial Services handles the asset recovery for customers and the viability of the units determines how they are recycled/

Turning Trash to Into New Products

In a post this week by author Marc Gunther, Walmart announced that as part of its efforts to reduce its waste streams from its retail and distribution centers, they are working with one if its suppliers (Worldwise) to begin what it calls the Full Circle program. This program creates a closed-loop system that takes old plastic bottles, clothes hangers, plastic bags and corrugated cardboard and makes new products from materials that would otherwise be waste- and turns them into eco friendly pet products that are in turn resold in Walmart stores. And there you have it-trash to treasure through “upcycling”.

Quoting Gunthers post, “We’re committed to creating zero waste,” explains John Kunkel, senior buyer, pets for Walmart. One way to get there is to take things that Walmart throws away and instead of sending them to a landfill, make them into something useful.” The effort reportedly took more than a year and was coordinated with “seven or eight different divisions of the company.” according to Mr. Kunkel. After Walmart’s waste is baled, it is separated into its components at materials recycling facilities. Then the baled waste is trucked to supplier Worldwise’s North American manufacturing plants. The products that result are then shipped to distribution centers and to all of Walmart’s U.S. stores. “We’ve had to create a playbook,” Kunkel said. “Now other manufacturers can implement a closed loop in their business.”

Once you can get a handle around which products pose the greatest asset value in terms of recoverability, the next phase is in looking for potential ways to reprocess or reuse waste byproducts or other manufacturers that may be turn your waste into their product feedstock. Either way it’s a win-win-win- for your company, your customers and the environment.

Further posts will focus on proactive steps that companies can take to design sustainability in product manufacturing, and ways to coordinate reverse logistics campaigns with suppliers and customers.

Meantime, it would be valuable to this readership if you’d consider sharing what your company is doing to “lighten the environmental load” on the planet and in your manufacturing process.

In late 2009, Green Seal[1] announced that they had developed a pilot sustainability standard for product manufacturers called “GS-C1”. This pilot standard recognizes socially and environmentally responsible product manufacturers so consumers can make informed choices while helping companies save money by reducing the resources they use and improving their brand and sales position.

The Pilot Standard is now available for public review until September 30th, so it’s not too late to get your comments into the queue.

While the GS-C1 Pilot Sustainability Standard is under review, Green Seal will be piloting a certification program for consumer product manufacturers. The objective of the pilot certification program is to gain practical understanding about the GS-C1 requirements and procedures from companies that are going through the certification process.

Monitoring of sub-suppliers (extra points are given if there is “Evidence of working with suppliers to resolve issues found during social and environmental compliance evaluations”.

Accountability is recognized as well by designating a “senior officer” to be “responsible for enforcement of compliance with local laws, supplier Code of Conduct, and action plan for highest-priority suppliers and sub-suppliers.”

Annually issue a publically available report on its supplier management activities and performance

The new standard represents a focal shift of sorts for Green Seal. The organizations efforts to date have focused on assessing and documenting the environmental footprint of a specific product. Now with GS-C1, the emphasis is now shifting to the entire product life cycle and all inputs and outputs from a supply chain perspective (the entire design, manufacturing, distribution and end of life management cycle). This standard is but one of several new standards under development, such as ULE 880 (see my earlier post) that are taking a whole systems approach to manufacturing- a refreshing and necessary step to manage consumption sustainably while enhancing manufacturing efficiency.

Courtesy AU Optronics Corp.

Some companies are not waiting around for the specifications to be completed. AU Optronics Corporation (AUO)is one of many examples of companies that are adapting to the ‘new normal’ in supply chain management, where environmental issues and social accountability are factored into daily operations. AUO built one of a handful of factories that are (Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED) certified. The company has established a proactive program with its subcontractors and suppliers and includes elements related to quality, green products, manufacturing, labor and ethics, cost and ESH (see attached Figure). A cross-functional team from the company’s Quality Department, Risk Management & ESH Department, Procurement Department, and R&D Department, conduct audit activities. The company has strict acceptance requirements and will not accept a subcontractor or supplier until all of its environmental and social aspects of its products or services are approved. The company also conducts routine management, periodic audits, and ratings for subcontractors and suppliers. On paper at least, AUO appears to be doing things in alignment with both ULE880 and GS-C1.

I encourage you to consider GS-C1 and ULE 880’s positions on supply chain management and plan ahead for what is undoubtedly a sign of ‘greener’ things to come in business management.

[1] Green Seal is a non-profit organization devoted to working towards environmental sustainability through environmental standard setting, product certification, and public education. The intent of Green Seal’s standards is to reduce, to the extent technically and economically feasible, the environmental impacts associated with manufacturing and services. (Source: www.greenseal.org)

As we here in the U.S. head into Labor Day weekend, a few news items caught my attention this week. Each of these moves by large consumer and retail brands call to mind that there is a social side of the supply chain that adds organizational value and enhances brand reputation. This has been made more evident recently by all the discussion regarding efforts to change U.S law to squeeze ‘conflict minerals’ associated with manufacturing of cell phones, batteries and other electronics (http://bit.ly/aaae1V)

Yesterday an article in Triple Pundit (The Most Important Assets are not on the Balance Sheethttp://bit.ly/9fDfd5), noted that there are several “intangible” assets that create organizational value. Each of these “assets” clearly can (and should in my opinion) extend up and down the supply chain. First and foremost, a company’s primary assets are its employees. The article makes a valid point that employees are “the secret in the sauce and the glue that holds the corporation together”. Without employees to produce the goods, ensure product quality, move those goods efficiently and respond to customers, other company “assets” hold little value beyond their resell potential. Next, a company’s reputation is its most important asset, particularly if the corporation publicly declares commitment to the triple-bottom-line. As reported by Jeffrey Hollender earlier this year, Fortune Magazine has estimated that a company’s reputation represents 75% of the total value of an average business. Finally, company mission provides the long term direction on what tangible assets to acquire, align with and where to divest. It’s said that the mission is the “organization’s compass and the written articulation of corporate soul”. The article argues the importance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a key intangible that can affect corporate success and bottom line performance.

In a similar vein, several companies stepped into the spotlight this week to shine the importance of social and environmental responsibility along the supply chain.

First, Nestle, the world’s biggest food group, announced late last week it would invest $487 million in coffee projects by 2020 to help the company optimize its supply chain http://bit.ly/dhDhGY. Part of this plan includes the “Beyond the Cup” Nescafe Plan (http://bit.ly/9TnCIs): distributing 220 million high-yield, disease-resistant coffee plantlets to farmers by 2020, expanding technical assistance and buying directly from growers. The company announced its plans to double the amount of Nescafe coffee bought directly from farmers and their associations. All of the directly purchased green coffee will meet the company’s “4C” sustainability standards by 2015, with the support of the Rainforest Alliance and the 4C Association. The Rainforest Alliance is a nongovernmental organization that certifies farms for meeting sustainability criteria. The 4C Association, registered in Geneva, works towards sustainability in the coffee sector with a code of conduct and a verification system. Over 90,000 tons of Nescafe coffee will be sourced under the principles of the Rainforest Alliance and the Sustainable Agriculture Network, a coalition of conservation groups, by 2020, the company said. With apologies to Maxwell House and Kraft Foods, now that’s coffee that is “good to the last drop”!

In an upstream supply chain twist, Corporate Express/Australia has recently announced two major initiatives designed to encourage and assist businesses to become more environmentally and socially sustainable (http://bit.ly/bMB0U8). The company has produced the “Go Green Guide” – for a Greener Workspace” and is focused on adopting sustainable procurement practices. The 100% recyclable Go Green Guide features:

Over 1500 environmentally preferable products across all lines of business;

Facts and figures demonstrating the effect all businesses can have on the environment by using environmentally preferable products;

Explanations of certification labels to help businesses make environmentally conscious purchasing decisions;

An action plan that provides businesses with easy steps on how to start their journey towards creating a greener workspace.

Finally, Unilever has come up with a new tool designed to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in its supply chain. http://bit.ly/aLZ9wF. The company has developed The Cool Farm Tool. The tool enables both supply chain managers and individual farmers to input data they have access to in their daily jobs, and uses this to calculate their total greenhouse gas emissions from fields, inputs, land use and land use change, it said. “Farmers are then able to see the effect that making small actionable changes to their agricultural methods will have on their overall carbon emissions (such as using a different fertilizer, for example).”

Each of these examples underscores the “whole systems” approach that I’ve previously written about in this space and that underscore transparency and collaboration the “value” in the supply chain. Each company recognizes that to be a truly sustainable organization, it must reach deep beyond its four walls to its suppliers and customers.

What is your company doing to engage it’s supply chain to enhance corporate social responsibility and implement environmentally responsible product stewardship- along the entire supply chain? Happy Labor Day, everyone.